I don't know how well Dellucci "learned" to bat lead-off. He's currently batting .268. And while his OBP is acceptable for a lead-off man (.435), I don't know if I want Dellucci batting later, say trading spots with the Rangers' Nix. Although making the case for Nix or even Mench to bat lead-off is helped by their higher batting averages, their OBP would be completely unacceptable for a 1-slot man.

As a side-note, what does it say about the Rangers that even their lead-off man has hit 9 homers already. They are one sluggin' team.

Is nobody bothered by Brandon Inge saying that he tries to hit like Darin Erstad? Maybe he's trying to set goals he can easily achieve?

I am not convinced. We say Sosa became more disciplined, but is that really what happened? His walk totals went up after his power increased, or at best concurrently with his 66HR year. I bet there is a smidge of discipline there, and a heckuva a lot of change in the way he was pitched.

Likewise I see no reason, other than a 2 months stretch in 2005 that Dellucci has improved his discipline. He's not walking more, striking out less and we can hardly say Dellucci established himself as a starting player even now. And part timers/platoon guys often do worse than they do as full timers, and again I don't see where we can establish 'Discipline' in his case either.

This seems less like a real look at the numbers rather than just another justification of "why Beane is wrong"

of COURSE can't nobody be doin ANY sort of work that might could show that billy Beane the genius is EVER wrong about absolutely ANYTHING

If memory serves, Sosa drew a lot of walks in April and May of 1998, and *then* went bonkers with the homers in June.

These debates about whether or not Beane was 'wrong' are just ridiculous. To begin with, Moneyball is a dramatic story, and, as such, it exxagerates everything. I doubt that Beane would say that it's absolutely impossible to learn plate discipline, it's just very hard. The point is, if someone hasn't shown plate discipline in the past, that's generally a bad thing. Of course there are exceptions, but when evaluating players to draft you can't think about exceptions you need to follow established rules. So, great, it's wonderful that Sosa is a stud of a player...some things just can't be predicted with the limited data we have today. Beane isn't a god, and he's probably come to a number of incorrect conclusions (eg, thinking that hudson trade was a good idea), but at least he's tried to base his decision making on the scientific method. You can't always be right, but if your approach is solid, then that's the best you can hope for.

The other thing to remember, also, is that the Oakland Athletics do try to teach plate discipline by encouraging good process at the plate. If a player hits a home run on an outside pitch, he's reprimanded. If he takes that pitch, even if it's called a strike, he's praised.

As for Sosa, I believe the batting coach who turned him around specifically taught him to be more selective at the plate. Rob has it right above. The discipline came first, then the power explosion.

Like a lot of his theories - such as preferring college players to high schoolers - Beane is taking the safer bet and excluding high-risk/high-reward options that a small market team can't afford to gamble on. I believe that it's possible for some guys to learn patience, but from Beane's perspective it's more important that it's not wise to put your money on it happening. You invest in a guy with no plate discipline, you better not be doing so on the projection that he will get some later.

Um,

-Billy Beane didn't write Moneyball. Why do people always talk about this book as if he did?

-The assertions/theories attributed to Beane (by Michael Lewis) in Moneyball are not accurately summarized as "established players can't be changed". That's a straw man, nicely demolished.

-What Beane is quoted as asserting (in Moneyball, but Michael Lewis) is that despite fluctuating numbers of homers, etc., players have an innate talent/quality which you could call "a good eye" or "plate discipline", which persists and can be identified early.

-A player's "plate discipline" does not need to remain EXACTLY CONSTANT OVER HIS ENTIRE CAREER for Beane's theory to be correct, or useful, you know. If a player improves his "plate discipline" from one five-year-span to the next, then fine, you re-evaluate that player's abilities. So what?

-In fact, Beane explicitly rejects the idea that players remain constant! He's always constantly yammering about career "arcs", and what "ages" are the most productive, and taking that stuff into account. Inge is 28. Refresh my memory, when do players "peak"? Delluci is 31 so maybe he's "peaking" a little late, but still, nothing here "flies in the face" of what Beane says.

-The whole point of these ideas is to get a metric that is more useful than the traditional BA/HR, or "number of tools", way of evaluating a player. Beane's metric is to try to gauge a player's plate discipline early, and use that to predict his success later. Even if that's *wrong* for some players (because they can have sucky plate discipline at time 1 but learn plate discipline by time 2), it would *still* be a better metric than raw BA/HR, thus useful.

These attempts to prove Billy Beane "wrong" about this stuff are a bit silly. Folks always end up inflating Beane's claims into a ridiculous straw man, or misunderstanding them altogether. No, Beane is not perfect or a god, but his ideas (rather - the ideas he adopted; I don't believe they were all that original to him!) are *more useful than what had been the conventional wisdom*, and that's the point!